Topics Topics Edit Profile Profile Help/Instructions Help Member List Member List Edit Profile Register  
Search Last 1|3|7 Days Search Search Tree View Tree View  

Archive through September 09, 2002

Sepulchritude Forum » The Absinthe Forum Archive thru January 2003 » The Monkey Hole » Pikkle banished? » Archive through September 09, 2002 « Previous Next »

Author Message
Pataphysician
Posted on Monday, September 9, 2002 - 2:57 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

I'd see a doctor about that.
_Blackjack
Posted on Monday, September 9, 2002 - 2:55 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

My dick is punk.
Pataphysician
Posted on Monday, September 9, 2002 - 2:30 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

So you're saying that John Waters, Henry Miller, Lenny Bruce, The Fugs and the Sex Pistols didn't matter because Artaud came first?
Marccampbell
Posted on Monday, September 9, 2002 - 2:12 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

"voicing the unspeakable, the unthinkable..."

John Waters did it 10 years earlier than The Pistols.
Henry Miller did 40 years earlier.
Lenny Bruce did 20 years earlier.
Artaud did it 50 years earlier.
The Fugs did 15 years earlier.
Pataphysician
Posted on Monday, September 9, 2002 - 1:53 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

The Pistols social impact was voicing the unspeakable, the unthinkable, to the broadest possible audience.
Pataphysician
Posted on Monday, September 9, 2002 - 1:21 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

1. The Pistols got their message out to everybody. Their misanthropic lyrics were at the top of the charts. They said "Fuck You" on national TV, their every exploit was on the front page. National leaders publicly denounced them. You can't say that about The Ramones or any other Punk group.

2. The Ramones showed the way, no one could deny that.

3. Johnny has become a goddamn embarassment.
Marccampbell
Posted on Monday, September 9, 2002 - 12:50 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

pata,

please tell me about the social impact of The Pistols. I don't see it. Did they change anything? They had alot of media impact. On the other hand, The Ramones spawned a whole movement in rock and roll. There's no question they influenced The Pistols and The Clash. Both bands admit as much.

By the way, when I saw the Pistols reunion tour, Lydon was drinking from a bottle of Courvosier
on stage. Pretty bougeois, no?
Pataphysician
Posted on Monday, September 9, 2002 - 12:43 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Aye. The Pistols made a singular achievement, they had the #1 selling song which called the nation's leader a moron, and "not a human being", and told the citizens they had no future. And the song was never even allowed to be played on the radio. Nothing like that has been done before or since. The U.S. Punk groups had a nice subculture going and meant alot to certain individuals, but the Pistols had real social impact.
Lordhobgoblin
Posted on Monday, September 9, 2002 - 12:20 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Anarchy in the UK was released in late 1976. The Sex Pistols were on the scene a long time before October 1977.

I would not call the Ramones anything other than Punk. They were one of THE great bands, along with the Pistols, The Clash and the Buzzcocks. The Ramones may well have been around before the Pistols but being first does not always mean being the leader. By late 1977 the Sex Pistols undoubtedly lead the way in Punk.
Pataphysician
Posted on Monday, September 9, 2002 - 7:58 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

That's the same arguement they have over Dada: Was it the zeitgeist of 1916-1920 only or is there a "Dada Spirit" that has always existed? But either way it would be silly for an artist to make "Dada" art today. There's plenty to be learned from the example, but Dada as a form is safely put to bed in the history books.

Same thing with Punk. As far as I'm concerned Punk was already frozen by 1980. Everything that could be done with it had been done. After that Punk came to be a regimented style that only bore some resemblence to (and often completely contradicted) the "Punk Spirit" of 1975-1977. I recall with bemusement the twin appearance of Flipper and Bad Brains in 1980, making it clear that Punk as a musical form, as a creative vehicle, was played out: all that could be done with the format was play it super fast like Bad Brains or super slow like Flipper. (I loved both of those bands, but that was pretty much the end of the line). People are certainly welcome to go on making "Punk Music" but it's like playing Big Band music.

Rimbaud, Lenny Bruce, Jim Morrison -- they may have had the spirit, but what each of those people produced was specific to their time. Likewise the "Punk Spirit" today will not manifest itself in Punk Music. It will be something else, something unrecognizable, that will sucker-punch people's brains. Which the so-called Punk bands of today can't do, because the world got an innoculation of Punk Music 25 years ago and now it's immune.
_Blackjack
Posted on Monday, September 9, 2002 - 7:31 am:   Edit PostPrint Post


Quote:

Being a punk was shaking up the status quo, questioning authority,
and creating confusion.



Exactly. Limiting "punk" to a few bands in the late '70's is like limiting "romantic" to the Lake Poets. It is a vibe, an aesthetic, an approach to the fuckheadedness of the rest of the world...
Mr_Rabid
Posted on Monday, September 9, 2002 - 1:43 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

Punk gave birth Siouxsie and the Banshees, who begat goth, which mated with Throbbing Gristle and begat industrial.

And tho the haircuts were different, yet the core remains the same.
Bob_Chong
Posted on Sunday, September 8, 2002 - 10:37 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Nirvana was just Hootie and the Blowfish on smack.

At least in marketing terms that holds fairly true. I mean, Nirvana wasn't "alternative" in any way, unless you mean that they were an alternative to Whitney Houston...

And Cobain was a pussy. A junkie whore.
Marccampbell
Posted on Sunday, September 8, 2002 - 10:18 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

My take on punk is a little different than most of the folks posting here. I don't see it as merely a music and fashion trend. Being a punk, for me,
was being an outlaw, someone on the outside, someone who didn't fit in. Being a punk was shaking up the status quo, questioning authority,
and creating confusion. Rimbaud was a punk. He
set out to derange the senses, his own and those of the people who read his poems. Lenny Bruce was a punk. He held up the stinking shit-stained underwear of hypocrisy and shoved it into the faces of the moral majority.Jim Morrison was a punk, a romantic punk who tossed Jungian firecrackers into the crowd and stepped back and watched the melee. Patti Smith was a punk who played with sexual identity and saw deep magic in the powers of rock and roll. The Ramones were punks, fucked with in school, losers who picked up guitars like weapons and, on the count of four, strafed audiences with sonic bullets.
Had the kids at Columbine played guitars, instead of passively soaking in the bad karma of video games, would things have turned out different? Punk has been around as long as there's been the disenfranchised, the outsiders,the loners. Jesus was a punk.
Nascentvirion
Posted on Sunday, September 8, 2002 - 9:09 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Could it be argued that industrial is some sort of weird inbred cousin of punk? Industrial is angst correct, only angst without a fashion.
_Blackjack
Posted on Sunday, September 8, 2002 - 9:05 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post


Quote:

If certain bands had dropped their political messages would they have been any less Punk? No. On the other hand if they dropped their 'smash the place up' messages would they have been any less Punk? Yes.



Not that I agree with this distinction, that would still mean that later bands, like DKs, who had a political bent but retained the "smash the place up" message would still be punk.
Nolamour
Posted on Sunday, September 8, 2002 - 6:57 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Um, Not Punk...

(was) Seattle Grunge.
Crowlyman
Posted on Sunday, September 8, 2002 - 6:36 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

What about Nirvana?
Mr_Rabid
Posted on Sunday, September 8, 2002 - 3:12 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Iggy Pop is punk.

Iggy sang 'destroy.'

But also sings so many songs that hate this McWorld and demand change for the better that, um... there's a lot of em!

Punk is not monochromatic, any more than any other movement or musical style.

Hobby's definition is exclusive rather than inclusive, which doesn't matter a damn.

You can call the Ramones 'new wave country' for all it matters.

Piss into the digital wind. It's fun and much less messy than in real life.
Marccampbell
Posted on Sunday, September 8, 2002 - 1:34 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

The Pistols led the way? Bullshit!

The first issue of Punk magazine hit the newstands in January of '76. The Pistol's "Never Mind"...hit record stores in October of '77.
The Ramones were playing CBGB's in 1975.
Lordhobgoblin
Posted on Sunday, September 8, 2002 - 11:12 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

The Jam. I remember buying "This is the Modern World" single when it was released. It seemed that I had no sooner bought it when suddenly the Jam were no longer Punk, they were Mods and as such I was duty bound to hate them.
Pataphysician
Posted on Sunday, September 8, 2002 - 10:53 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

Shoot, I just lost my post that made the same point:

The "real" first Clash album came out in early 1977. The US version didn't come out until 1979 and included newer songs such as "Hammersmith", which was actually written in late 1978 and already reflects a change from the early days of Punk. The band with the Burton suits by the way, was The Jam. The Clash would change those lyrics whenever they performed with The Jam so as not to offend them!
Lordhobgoblin
Posted on Sunday, September 8, 2002 - 10:43 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

Blackjack,

You Americans got "White Man in The Hammersmith Palais" and "I Fought The Law" on your 1st Clash album but we got "Cheat" and "Deny" on ours. I'm not sure who got the better deal (although we had the American album songs as singles).

OK so the Clash made a handful of punk songs with a political message (so did SLF) whereas the Pistols were nihilistic. Was any political outlook necessary for Punk? Was it central to Punk? Was it even important to Punk? The answer has to be no, otherwise the Sex Pistols (who were undoubtedly leading the way) did not fit into Punk. If Punk bands had a political bent then that was a 'bolt on extra'.

If certain bands had dropped their political messages would they have been any less Punk? No. On the other hand if they dropped their 'smash the place up' messages would they have been any less Punk? Yes.
Nolamour
Posted on Sunday, September 8, 2002 - 10:03 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

"We've worn out our welcome in every bar in town, but before we get thrown out again, we'll burn this shithouse down. We know we aint too pretty, and we know we're outta line and we're outaa luck, but who gives a fuck, we never spent a dime!" - Sheer Terror
Hmmm - I guess that sums it up about pissy and destroying things.

"Guilty of being White" - Minor Threat
More relevant today than when it was written.
Nascentvirion
Posted on Sunday, September 8, 2002 - 7:14 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

Gabba Gabba Gabba HEY ! Gabba WEE! Gabba Gabba.

Administration Administration Log Out Log Out   Previous Page Previous Page Next Page Next Page